Talk:Atom
Pages for deletion ;Rationale This article has had a pna on it for about two years, and has also largely remained the same since it was created in 2004. I can't recall any mention of atoms in Trek; parts of atoms have been mentioned, but I believe that is all. Perhaps this article simply needs to be reworked as a place combining the definitions of the parts of atoms, but if it hasn't been in years, and there is no citation available, it might need to go. 31dot 17:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC) ;Discussion *''Merge with matter article and delete. It could be made part of the matter article speaking of what matter is made of, which is atoms. The information it contains ''is accurate according to mainstream science, and it is short enough to not be considered going off-topic if it were made part of the matter article.– [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 20:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) *''Keep. There have been at least several mentions of Atom in Star Trek. Dr McCoy always complaining about having his atoms scrambled by the transporter for instance. I'm sure there could be many many more, if someone went through scripts, or transcriptions. It could use some references, of course, but I think theres a much better reason to have an article on this topic, ten say "algorithms". I realize algorithms is up for deletion... but my point is that while they'd seem to have the same level of validity... I support deletion for algorithms, but not Atom. Hossrex 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC) *Keep. Just heard Atom used in . As Hossrex said, a thorough search will probably bring up more than enough refs. Kennelly 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC) *:Revised Opinion: Keep. Watched "City on the Edge of Forever" and heard the same reference.– [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| listening...]] 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC) *I just want to be clear that I wasn't necessarily advocating its deletion, just trying to draw attention to it and say it should be deleted if there were no references. If there are references, it should stay. 31dot 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC) ;Admin resolution: * Kept. The article needs work, but consensus is consensus. -- Sulfur 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Quarks From a previous version of this page: :The subatomic particles of an atom are made of quarks each held together by a gluon. Is that not true? I'm certainly not a physicist, but at least the quarks part is what I was taught. I'm not so much advocating its reprisal, instead bringing it up as a topic of discussion. Hossrex 09:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) :Sure, it may be true... but ever anything like that mentioned in the context of the show? MA/en isn't WP. -- Sulfur 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Hurm... that was the point I was just making over in the Gorn page... so I am sensitive to your position... but I think theres a difference between filling out information with what we know about an atom, and contradicting information given on screen, just because we know it isn't "true". If we don't allow the comment about quarks, can we really have the information about electrons, protons, neutrons, or anything on that page, except that Edith Keeler at one point mentioned them? I'm not trying to say which is the better direction to take the article POV-wise... especially because I know the only answer that can be given... but I don't see the logic behind disallowing a reference to Quarks, but allowing a reference to protons/neutrons/electrons. All four are components of an atom, and to my recollection none were "technically" mentioned on screen (at the least, there is no citation). Assuming we allow your interpretation on the subject (which I have no difficulty with), what would be your justification for allowing the other references? Hossrex 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ::Level of separation. Atoms are not made of quarks, protons and neutrons are. If that information belongs anywhere, it would be on an article for protons (notice, if it belongs). Similarly to how we would not have an article carbon dioxide talking about protons, only about the carbon and oxygen atoms. It is a level of detail not all that pertinent to the subject, especially when one considers that it wasn't stated in canon to begin with. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Makes sense. I back down from the point. -- Hossrex 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Electrons Electrons don't always number the same as protons, in fact this is not mentioned in any episode I know of, So we need a citation for the description of "Electrons" that is canon, even if it's against real physics. In real physics "Leptons" of any kind can be found in orbit around a nucleus, Electrons are the most common lepton.Darren Hensley 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC) :With the exception of ions, it is a correct statement, and ions are normally distinguished when making a description like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)